• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

NAACP wants Georgia's Stone Mountain carving removed

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
WelshBloke said:
Hint, when you need to dance around quite so much in the language you use you know that youre defending the undefendable.


[Bolded are my corrections (just in case anyone get tetchy about me changing the quote)]
Click to expand...

You have some insight into the CBD. War is Peace.
 
Moonbeam said:
Clarification isn't moving the goal posts.
Click to expand...

It's not so much clarification as it is justification.

"What you believe is wrong and needs to changed, but the similar thing I believe is right because I've carved out an exception to ensure my viewpoint is still valid."

If a flag or a monument needs to go because it's related to an ugly past, we have an awful lot of things to tear down in this world.
 
OutHouse said:
boldly stupid? do i need to dumb it down for you? ok. "this group does not like something and there fore it must be destroyed"

thats exactly what ISIS is doing and what the NAACP wants to do. but in a less violent and civil manner.
Click to expand...

zinfamous said:
Ah.

I see you don't understand "boldly stupid."

Now I've bolded the stupid for you, if that helps.
Click to expand...

OutHouse said:
please dont go full retard, you are smarter than this.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I was "dumbing things down for you" because that seems like your MO. So, I'm not going to do that. I'm going to show how fucking stupid you are. Here we go:

"Let me dumb this down for you," as you said earlier.

See, that is exactly the mode from which you began this stupid thread. The NAACP is exactly like ISIS because "they both destroy--or want to destroy--things that they don't like." You dumbed it down to a level where only idiots would agree with you. That is what happens when you "dumb things down." Especially things as complex as ISIS and the more than 400 year history of race relations in this country. "Dumbing down" is what happens when you ignore the relevant details of two complex issues and try to construct a pus-addled talking point that appeals only to simpletons.

You ignored the manner by which groups and individuals act which, in the case of ISIS, is exactly and exclusively why we dislike them, and distilled the entirely of their movement and their organization into a single one of the many ideas for which they claim to stand.

The NAACP has done nothing here, yet this press conference has made them exactly like ISIS because they mentioned that something needs to be removed. Not destroyed, exploded, shattered into bits, burned...raped, beheaded, murdered, beaten, tortured...oh I lost track--but removed. Exactly. ...like ISIS.

Further, when you try to make this analogy, when you try to say this group is the same as that group, you have to use a comparison for which you can't so easily say this about any group that is out there; and especially not the groups whose acknowledgement would be rather embarrassing to you:

Those hipsters that burned all of those Disco records are exactly like ISIS!
Those dumbshit WASP parents who destroyed all those Beatles records are exactly like ISIS!
Those GOP nutbags that want to destroy Planned Parenthood are exactly like ISIS!
etc.

So, you know why none of these groups, and certainly not the NAACP are anything like ISIS? It's because they aren't going out and murdering, raping, kidnapping, terrorizing, waiting for the apocalyptic war to destroy the earth (well, there indeed are some in the GOP tend that are giddy over that prospect--which is exactly why they want to go to war).

You say that actions are irrelevant, that ideas are always more important than the manner by which one pursues those ideas, and that your comparison is sound.

Sensible people know not only that you are wrong about this assessment, but that you present yourself as a fool when trying to defend your argument.

In short: you have, indeed, gone full retard.
 
Last edited:
xBiffx said:
5% of white southerners owned slaves. 5%! How is this at all about slavery and/or racism?

The issue was always state's rights. Slavery was just a talking point to focus in on around that man issue. It would be much like gun rights discussions today. Gun rights are always at the center of the debate but some focus more in on things like CCW or magazine restrictions.

Also, how could it have been about slavery. Grant still owned slaves at the surrender while Lee had freed his 20 years prior. Grant even said that had the war been about slavery, he never would have fought.
Click to expand...

Just ask the Vice President of the Confederacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech

But, we can just ignore that nobody!
 
eskimospy said:
No, did you bother to read my links?

Your source is saying that the % of white people in the south that were slaveholders was 5%, but in that they are counting women and children who in many cases simply couldn't be slaveholders. Under your metric if you have a slave that serves 5 people in a family that's 1 slaveowner. It should be immediately obvious to you how that's either a foolish or dishonest metric.

My links count the percentage of families that owned slaves, which if you take a minute to think about it makes way more sense, as I doubt the wives and children of slaveowners didn't consider the slave theirs just because their name wasn't on the paperwork.
Click to expand...

So wait, my links show 5% and you say they include women and children. You then say that it incorrect and they shouldn't be included. So somehow if we only include the men slave owners the percentage is going to be more than 5%? Are you fucking serious?

How in the hell do families make a good metric? If a family of 10 has one slave then that is just one slave owner. And then a family of 2 has one slave, again that is only 1 slave owner. Yet there are still 10 people not counted who do in fact participate in slavery. So how again is county families a better metric?

Such a low percentage of southerners participated in slavery that to say the civil war was all about slavery is ridiculous. Many of the people fighting in the war didn't even participate in slavery.
 
Last edited:
xBiffx said:
How in the hell do families make a good metric? If a family of 10 has one slave then that is just one slave owner. And then a family of 2 has one slave, again that is only 1 slave owner. Yet there are still 10 people not counted who do in fact participate in slavery. So how again is county families a better metric?
Click to expand...

Seriously? If we use a per capita analysis of those two families, 17% of them are slaveowners. If we use a family analysis, 100% of those families own slaves. Which is more accurate in determining who is benefiting from the institution of slavery?

xBiffx said:
Such a low percentage of southerners participated in slavery that to say the civil war was all about slavery is ridiculous. Many of the people fighting in the war didn't even participate in slavery.
Click to expand...

Such a low percentage of the people fighting in Iraq owned stock in defense or oil companies; that doesn't mean those weren't factors to the people who started the war. You think that everyone who got drafted to fight in Vietnam felt a compelling interest in defending Southeast Asia from the spread of communism? The grunts in the battle never get to choose why they're fighting.
 
Atomic Playboy said:
Seriously? If we use a per capita analysis of those two families, 17% of them are slaveowners. If we use a family analysis, 100% of those families own slaves. Which is more accurate in determining who is benefiting from the institution of slavery?
Click to expand...

No, 100% of them are slave owners and in regards to the war are concerned in whether or not it was about fighting to end/keep slavery or not.

Atomic Playboy said:
Such a low percentage of the people fighting in Iraq owned stock in defense or oil companies; that doesn't mean those weren't factors to the people who started the war. You think that everyone who got drafted to fight in Vietnam felt a compelling interest in defending Southeast Asia from the spread of communism? The grunts in the battle never get to choose why they're fighting.
Click to expand...

Saying that something was a factor is completely different than saying the entire reason for a war was because of such and such. I'm not going to argue that slavery wasn't a factor for some but that doesn't mean that the entire war was fought to end slavery. Those are two completely different statements.

Lincoln even said that if he could save the Union without freeing a single slave, he would do it. So even for him, the war wasn't about ending slavery.
 
Last edited:
unokitty said:
washington_rushmore-2-P.jpeg


Lakota Times


Slave holders, Indian killers, nice monument white boy!

Uno
Click to expand...


Actually 303 Lakota were sentenced to death, Lincoln pardoned most of them.
 
How is this any different from a Militant Muslim group that wants to destroy a Buddha? It is a racist hateful act to deface a work of art.
 
piasabird said:
How is this any different from a Militant Muslim group that wants to destroy a Buddha? It is a racist hateful act to deface a work of art.
Click to expand...

I guess because in one example, we have a group that hates all other religions and wants to erase them (so: my god is better than your god), and in the other we have a group that wants to end memorializing of groups and people that, specifically, enslaved that group? (so: those people fought to keep me enslaved)

Look, I don't think anyone here is outright defending this case (I think the NAACP is being stupid), but you guys grasping at false equivalence, over and over again, to make your case is no less retarded than the NAACP here.

I mean, it's funny to watch you squirm; but seriously, bro.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top